Will this proposal stop bullying?

[MinisterofCucumber]

The national strike was a protest against management bullying staff. I can't see any specific measures in this proposal to address this problem.

Bullying has occurred because rogue local managers have ignored and broken policies. Local management have shown they can't be trusted to behave. When this joke of a proposal goes back to the drawing board, I suggest that all admin managers and their staff are line managed directly by HR with the responsibility of making sure policies are followed. This should take some power away from local managers and provide more accountability.

Has anyone else got any suggestions for resolving the bullying problem?

[k979aaa]

The national strike was a protest against management bullying staff. I can't see any specific measures in this proposal to address this problem.

Bullying has occurred because rogue local managers have ignored and broken policies. Local management have shown they can't be trusted to behave. When this joke of a proposal goes back to the drawing board, I suggest that all admin managers and their staff are line managed directly by HR with the responsibility of making sure policies are followed. This should take some power away from local managers and provide more accountability.

Has anyone else got any suggestions for resolving the bullying problem?

In a word NO!

[viking]

This proposal infact will give mangement a licence to bully and intimidate the workers. There are too many grey areas...unspecified delivery spans...unspecified amount of d2ds..unspecified work loads...unspecified starting, finishing times. Everything is reliant upon local agreement apparently. We will not have a leg to stand on if needing to complain about any of the issues which as we know is presently causing a problem for anyone who is having difficulty completing walks etc. etc VOTE NO

[drb]

Your rep & DOM will be part of the workshops with the presence of ACAS.Make sure your rep writes everything down.I think the dismantling of the IR framework for the revision process is a good idea.Why? Because when you hit stage 3 the DSM drives through his changes. Your better off getting 3rd and 4th parties involved once you disagree with a parameter.

DOMS absolutaly hate being scrutinised because,(and I am not being rude here)...they are not capable.It is easier for them to just say "No" to an inexperienced local rep who cannot,or does not, have his area reps phone number.

This has to stop.Get their emails,(area and divisional),and make them work.The idea is that the divisional rep has the ear of HQ.They then report to ACAS and Roger Poole. These two have been appointed by the TUC and the goverment,(not happened before).

Higson has statedthat he wants names of rogue managers.However being a "rogue" starts from the top in my opinion.However we need to inform everyone in charge when they start playing up.

[vinnieb5]

no f***ing chance

[ronpetetrevchris]

Your rep & DOM will be part of the workshops with the presence of ACAS.Make sure your rep writes everything down.I think the dismantling of the IR framework for the revision process is a good idea.Why? Because when you hit stage 3 the DSM drives through his changes. Your better off getting 3rd and 4th parties involved once you disagree with a parameter.

DOMS absolutaly hate being scrutinised because,(and I am not being rude here)...they are not capable.It is easier for them to just say "No" to an inexperienced local rep who cannot,or does not, have his area reps phone number.

This has to stop.Get their emails,(area and divisional),and make them work.The idea is that the divisional rep has the ear of HQ.They then report to ACAS and Roger Poole. These two have been appointed by the TUC and the goverment,(not happened before).

Higson has statedthat he wants names of rogue managers.However being a "rogue" starts from the top in my opinion.However we need to inform everyone in charge when they start playing up.

[Martin Walsh]

Minster your wrong again.

Managers adopted two central policies on bullying last year 1. was taking indivduals of pay for either not working fast enough or not doing work which they were instructed to. Secondly management targeted indivduals for not achieving unrealistic and unagreed standards of performance.

Royal Mail were never going to agree to an indpendent review of bullying and harrassment in Royal Mail. Tell me another company who has agreed to such a review ? There again years ago we had the Lord Sawer review into Royal Mail which produced a comprehensive review into bullying in the industry and put in recommendations etc. However tell me did anything change for the better from that independent report ?

No what will stop managers bullying is to agree the standards for both indoor and outdoor which are fair , objective , realistic approved by ACAS and are comparing indivduals on a like for like basis regardless of age. The union has agreed to that its contained on page 17 titled productivity , which is undershined by the following words ROYAL MAIL AND THE CWU ASPIRE TO THE COMPANY BEING AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WORLD CLASS BUSINESS WITH ENGAGED AND MOTIVATED STAFF. You do not motivate staff by bullying.

In addition Page 22 titled work measurement /standards and revison tools , this informs how the standards will be worked up and agreed and informs about the workshops. the key paragraphs are PLANNING FOR OPERATIONAL CHANGE IN DELIVERY UNITS WILL BE DONE USING NATIONAL PLANNING AND MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS , AND REVISION TOOLS TO ENSURE WORKLOAD IS ASSESSED AND APPLIED OUT DOOR DELIVERY ROUTES ARE OPTIMISED, EFFERICENT AND ACHIEVABLE , RECOGNISING ANY SPECIFIC LOCAL ISSUES THAT MAY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. THE AIM OF THE WORKSHOPS IS TO PROVIDE IN AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PLANNING AND MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS AND REVISION TOOLS IN USE.

Minster you really need to read the agreement and dont just spin what you think the agreement does.

As someone who reprsented some 200 members who got taken off pay last year for apparntly not working to unagreed standards , I know agreed standards will stop this bullying .

[MinisterofCucumber]

Dingo,

I have not got it wrong again.

Bullying does not only occur because management try to force staff to work to unagreed standards. Bullying also occurs when management show favouritism and the favourites are used to bully on behalf of management. Bullying occurs when management and union keep staff in the dark about their rights. Bullying occurs when the union allows management to break policies.

There may be third and fourth party involvement in the workshops but that will not be the case when it comes to implementation. Why does drb advise reps to write down what happens in workshops? There should be watertight written procedures and these workshops should have taken place before the ballot.

I caught management breaking pay protection and substitution policies. Our principal unit manager paid his safenet staff pay protection but did not pay cash centre staff pay protection on three revisions. There is good reason to call the police in and investigate this fraud. What did the union do? They got a PEC member to send me threatening emails and tried to get me to a 'kangaroo' court. This is why I don't trust the CWU.

I am glad Higson has said he wants the names of rogue managers. I shall deal with him directly rather than getting an ignorant union official to drag the whole thing out then f**k it up. The way to stop bullying is to take some power away from the local managers, make them accountable and for the union to make sure that its reps and members are well informed. Our rep did not even know about MtSF and it is the union's responsibility to make sure its reps are adequately trained.

I have read the agreement and there is no mention of ACAS overseeing the workshops. ACAS have told me, "the wording of the agreement is the responsibility of the parties". You are trying to portray me as someone who misinterprets written agreements. I have helped a lot of people on this site by deciphering agreements like MtSF. Union officials come on here and attack people like me and dvbuk55 but are too scared to attack Roy Mayall, who shares our views.

This ballot is being conducted disgracefully and I would be very grateful if you would provide me the details of the independent organisation responsible for refereeing this ballot so that I can make a complaint.

[Martin Walsh]

It simply is not true my moan is the reverse that if some posters on here spent half the amount of time arguing with their managers then they would not have the terms and conditions they do in their offices. The likes of myself , Lovejoy , the truth walk the walk and dont just talk the talk.

Well done to you for the pay protection issues but the reality is that should have been picked up by your rep as it is in the vast majortity of cases.

Now in terms of Drb comments I think the fact is the national workshops start today and that is a good thing. I must state that i have personally met with both the Peter Harwood and John Woods and it is not their role to write the words of an agreement it is their role to ensure that both sides agree words which are accepted to both sides and more importantly it is their role to oversee the workshops.

I know for a fact that Bob Gibson has asked for acas assitance at the workshop as they have wrote the guidelines on BSI and have experts in the field.

[teesdale]

With no management training course, just a week of shadowing another manager, you just apply to become an acting manager and three weeks later you are one. With no management skills, 40% of your day as free time, resentment from the manager above and uncertainty about your role, the bad behaviour and panic begins. For example the manager who after telling you to do something always pauses for a short while then raises his voice and says "Now" unnecessarily. Same manager threatens the conduct code three of four times a day, for example; warning you not to spend too long going to the toilet (even before youve gone, and asked permission) or not working fast enough. Royal Mail accepts bullying as a management tool in its mail centres as a way, as they see it, to get things done, because it wont invest in selection testing and a training course.

[drb]

This is probably why there will be management cut of 1200.Because they are simply not capable.And anyway...who elso wants the job anyway. The days when posties took the management role for an easy/early finish are long gone.

They do not like the proposed new deal because,one aspect is the 8 hour Saturday. The other is the D2D.I know for a fact that they do not do D2D checks now,(with 3 capped).

Also a lot of them would rather go back to "blue" under the current proposals.Their new role will be in charge of a small section of delivery and then perform a delivery themselves. Some have now been muttering that they would be better off on full time delivery.

[ashadd]

Grow some balls and stand your ground . At the moment it can be done, its not easy but it can be done,dont expect to much help from some your colleagues, they like to watch from a distance, thinking im glad it aint me. If you have a good rep, i have, then he will help you.If you follow rm proceedures , then there isnt a thing they can do , and they know it. BUT....... if this agreement is passed,we will all be fecked , because there will not be any definite proceedures to follow .

[fishtank]

Minster your wrong again.

Managers adopted two central policies on bullying last year 1. was taking indivduals of pay for either not working fast enough or not doing work which they were instructed to. Secondly management targeted indivduals for not achieving unrealistic and unagreed standards of performance.
As someone who reprsented some 200 members who got taken off pay last year for apparntly not working to unagreed standards , I know agreed standards will stop this bullying .

If you truly believe dingo,that this is what members mean by bullying and harrassment and that just having agreed standards will suddenly cure all ills then you are way off the mark.
These are examples of bullying,the ones in green i have witnessed or have knowledge of and the ones in red i have witnessed or have knowledge of involving a manager,

1.constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism (often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or ignored
2.forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the triviality is the giveaway)
3.undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are raised, or doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard of work - however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable evidence, for they are only the bully's unreliable opinion and are for control, not performance enhancement
4.overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalised, ostracised
5.isolated and excluded from what's happening (this makes people more vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
6.singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can have a meal break but if they are one minute late it's a disciplinary offence)
7 belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronised, subject to disparaging remarks
8.regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or inappropriate bad language
9.unwanted sexual behaviour
10.threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of others
11.taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and humiliate
12.set unrealistic goals and deadlines which are unachievable or which are changed without notice or reason
13.denied information or knowledge necessary for undertaking work and achieving objectives
14.starved of overtime, sometimes whilst others often receive more than they need
15.given the silent treatment: the manager refuses to communicate and avoids eye contact subject to excessive monitoring, supervision
16.the subject of written complaints by other members of staff (most of whom have been coerced into fabricating allegations - the complaints are trivial, often bizarre ["He looked at me in a funny way"] and often bear striking similarity to each other, suggesting a common origin)
17.find requests for leave have unacceptable and unnecessary conditions attached, sometimes overturning previous approval.
18.denied annual leave or - especially - compassionate leave
19.receive unpleasant or threatening calls while on sick leave.
20.are invited to "informal" meetings which turn out to be disciplinary meetings
21.are denied representation at meetings, often under threat of further disciplinary action
22.encouraged to feel guilty, and to believe they're always the one at fault
23.subjected to unwarranted and unjustified verbal or written warnings
24.facing unjustified disciplinary action on trivial or specious or false charges
25.facing dismissal on fabricated charges or flimsy excuses, often using a trivial incident from months or years previously

I'm sorry my red pen has run out......
If you believe a few workshops and some agreed but as yet unseen performance standards will change all that you've been at the cooking sherry and i believe if you care to ask them,the majority of members on this site will tell you they have witnessed at least some if not all of the above.

[tojobevred]

dingo come down off that cloud as a rep bullying still exists and this agreement will
see no different it will get worse
the agreement will be interpreted to how rm want it as the have done with the
pay and modernisation agreement

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Royal Mail were never going to agree to an indpendent review of bullying and harrassment in Royal Mail. Tell me another company who has agreed to such a review ?

Ohh I like a challenge:

United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorg ... /index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NHS Employers, on behalf of the NHS Staff Council, commissioned an independent review of the NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework (NHS KSF). http://www.nhsemployers.org/PayAndContr ... rence.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WATERWAYS IRELAND: INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF BULLYING AND HARASSMENT http://archive.nics.gov.uk/cal/050404a-cal.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

University of Bradford http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ode=405841" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although I grant you all these are Government agencies or in the case of Trusts, Government owned businesses if you will. I also agree that Royal Mail won't agree to an independent review without pressure, but the CWU have always IMHO been good at applying political pressure.